Colm Keaveney (Galway East, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion. I believe that it is an issue that is representative of the struggle taking place ideologically in government. That ideological struggle pales into insignificance relative to the one that is taking place in the economy in terms of the difficulties many people have in terms of the security of their employment, low pay and so on.

I support the motion, but not in its entirety. I ask Sinn Féin to identify with Fianna Fáil's amendment and urge that party and the Government to accept it and progress in the spirit of the motion.

Out of the recent past, a new model and a new society has been constructed by the Minister, who was sitting beside the Minister of State but has since departed the Chamber. This new model was not by accident, but by design. The Government has no mandate for what that man has done to the economy in terms of the quality of its recovery, nor does it have the House's approval. We are witnessing the creation of a US-type economy, with low wages, insecure contracts, an increasing prevalence of zero-hours contracts and the unstated principle that workers should be grateful just to have jobs. Apart from those with whom the Minister of State shares Government, we all know that the people primarily bearing the brunt of this are young and, in particular, female. They are predominantly the ones working on temporary contracts. The Government is actively promoting inequality through its inaction on the prevalence of this situation. In 2011, 16% of the labour market comprised temporary contracts. Tonight, the figure is 26%. During that reference period, child deprivation rates have increased significantly, with one in five children going to school hungry. That is the significance of this debate.

This situation may suit the employer or capital, but only in the short term. The Government parties might fool themselves in terms of the pursuit of an economy, but they must ask themselves whether, in the context of a quality society, that economic model is right for the future of the country. The Minister, Deputy Bruton, can salivate over the increasing figures for exports and certain sectors of the economy, which are doing reasonably well, but domestic demand is still on its knees. Families and individuals are insecure and are not confident about their circumstances. We will not see a drive for domestic consumption until workers believe they have security.

Inaction can no longer be a tactic for the Government. It has been a policy of this Government. Trade unions were undoubtedly brought on board from the start and attacks were made on employment numbers and conditions of employment in the public service through the carrot or stick approach of collective bargaining. Several times, Ministers and Government backbenchers boasted about what was coming, including legislation that the Minister of State, Deputy Nash, promised. Given the quality available to us, he is the best person to do that. However, "collective bargaining" is a phrase that must mean something. Its spirit must mean proper workplace democracy and engagement. Nothing more, nothing less.

Regarding zero-hours contracts and related matters, I am sure that there will be a conflict in government when the Attorney General hides behind a report and there are mutterings of a constitutional requirement. In terms of what can be done, will the Minister of State take the lead and mandate public service employers to eliminate the use of zero-hours contracts for special needs assistants, SNAs, home helps, teacher aids and so on? He can do that immediately and without having to wait for a commission on zero-hours contracts.

A former Minister, Deputy Quinn, stated on radio yesterday that there was no alternative to this Government. From the beginning of this term, the Cabinet has stated that "there is no alternative". Incidentally, that phrase was robbed from Margaret Thatcher.

See this speech in context